option 3 + 4 are given a modest opportunity (using FTP / Usenet / peer-to-peer) during the evening, compared with bursty/ 4oD / Joost traffic which anyone (with possible exception of BB+) customers could download in the evenings at higher than 500 kbps - the type of max speed for option 4 for FTP, and 384 kbps for Usenet/peer-to-peer... speeds which have been criticised on ThinkBroadband as being quite restricted (though the clarity aspect appreciated, in the forum).

It makes sense to me for Option 1 + 2 to be on a lower speed if using Usenet binaries/ peer-to-peer, in respect of fee paid, and their overall allowances, else someone could wipe out their 8 GB in 2 weeks, so a small lesson in patience seems good

It depends, surely, on how big other 'rich media' streaming / downloading is, and what bandwidth is actually required for it. As a quick test, I started 4oD and streamed a recent "Grand Design" show. It was running at about 12% of my network speed (1200 kbps) and would have been going for about 50 minutes.

Downloading it (350 MB) is estimated by the 4oD tool at 96 minutes but is actually downloading faster than the streaming speed - averaging ~1600 kbps but is more spikey, started at around 22% and is wavering around the 2000 kbps mark, while outgoing traffic (as it's a peer-to-peer system) has increased a touch... My firewall claims I've downloaded around 3 GB using KService (part of the 4oD system) in the last few days, which seems a bit high, to be honest, though I did watch a few items from the last week.

(I had planned to do a streaming / downloading graphic, but was distracted by a phone call, so captured downloading / streaming - actually it was streaming the Gwen Stefani gig, but allows one to compare traffic levels quite well, and was similar to the Grand Design streaming).Anyone wanting can see my Windows Task Manager network report on tinypic.com.

I'm really struggling to understand your point about PAYG here to be honest, The problem is that if *everyone* wanted to use 2GB at full line rate in the evening, that would cost us a hell of a lot more than those customers pay us. If everyone uses 8GB in a more bursty fashion and does not need a guarantee of no drops on the protocols that drive high demand, that costs us less to deliver and we can do it economically.Ian

Unfortunately Ian I don't think you are making a fair comparison - why should you assume that a user on PAYG 2GB included would use the connection in any more intensive or non bursty way than an Option 2 user 8GB included. I would argue exactly the opposite - the amount of continuous downloading you can you can do and stay within a 2GB limit over a month is very limited but with an 8GB limit you have much more scope for pushing the system.The only way your argument stacks up is if the definition of gold on PAYG is wildly different to gold on the new products and hence virtually everything is speed limited from the first MB to the last MB within the 8GB allowance.With respect to the new costings from BTw - I have been following your discussions on this subject on TBB and the savings just aren't big enough to justify the increase in usage allowance and in any case that saving would apply equally to PAYG.

So are you saying we should sell a product which we know we can't deliver if more than x% try to (quite reasonably) use the available resource (at full line speed - PAYG) at the same time?

We've said that having all customers on PAYG with all traffic in Gold wouldn't work. You're making an assumption that it would based on your suggesting that not all customers actually would use it at the same time. But we would be advertising and selling a product which we would know we can't deliver fairly if everyone used it to the max.

Broadband Your Way makes it as fair as possible, and is a product that we can actually deliver as specified.

I am not saying that. I was suggesting the opposite that the new products aren't viable if PAYG isn't viable but your explanation makes it quite clear - on the new products all gold protocols are throttled to some extent which means that the only unshaped protocols are voip and gaming. Whereas on PAYG everything is gold and is not throttled.In comparing the tables on the two links in the announcement - we have gold traffic rate limited to 256 kbps at peak times - I don't class that speed as gold (iron pyrites maybe but not gold)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we could not justify having heavy-download applications such as P2P / USENET in Gold (such as they are for PAYG), for everyone, at peak times without there being a very large cost associated.

Sorry if I misrepresented what you meant but if we look back a few months when BB+ at £14.99 was being heavily restricted once you exceeded 2GB usage, even though P2P and Usenet were effectively blocked on that product, on the basis that the money paid only allowed about 1.5GB of usage. The changes in BTw costs are not significant enough to allow the sort of allowances we have in the new products. This is what was said by PlusNet a couple of months ago.

Quote

Based on an assumed wholesale cost of 70p per GB, the table shows that the amount of budgeted bandwidth per product differs significantly between Broadband Plus (£14.99) and Broadband Premier (£21.99). Broadband Plus is assigned roughly 1.5GB, whereas Broadband Premier is built for around 7GB per customer. (Both figures assume that usage is spread evenly across the peak period during the month).

We now have allowed usage of 8GB for £14.99 and £19.99 for 20GB and even allowing for doubling of peak times it really doesn't make sense to me.

A friend's parents are using the Eclipse Evolution 14.99 account which has an allowance of 20 GB during 'peak hours' (1800-0000) and a fair use policy (clear as mud, I know). Eclipse gets poor ratings (alongside PN, incidentally) on DSLZoneUK but their next account up, at 19.99, has peak hours limit of 30 GB, while their 29.99 account (level 4) has a 50 GB allowance... all are /plus/ the FUP "do what you want" rule for 0000-1800 each day...

Many will comment that such an account is unsustainable, but it's presumably down to the limited numbers who use these accounts to anything like 50% let alone 90% of their limits.

Entanet resellers are currently charging 19.99 to give 30 GB a month during peak hours (daytime to 2200, I think, without checking), and Entanet's 4th 622 Mbps pipe went live yesterday, with the next due in June.

I'm guessing that either there's a bit of contention overnight (when the 300+ GB limits are in place) or there's some speed throttling during the evenings, or there's a big chunk paid by business for fast daytime access and that's paying to cover the rest.

It's clearly a big juggling act when it comes to the numbers, how much BTW charges and how much the ISPs charge users, so there are some profits rather than losses, but it seems to me there are more light users paying a bit more than they need, while heavy users are not yet forcing all ISPs into the red, but could face contention if they tried to...

Well, they are committing to spend a lot more with us - That means we can plan our capacity needs, which adds a significant 'value' to the customer for us. The higher committed spend the more we can plan for in terms of concurrent capacity, which is why higher paying subscribers get faster speeds. Can you see why that is, or do I need to try and explain further?

We have been preparing for the time when Interactive traffic really explodes for a while now - We certainly see that as already started to happen, but I don't think we've seen anything yet. The fact is that many many customers will demand, rightfully, that this stuff works properly - They won't put up with having to wait like you can with a P2P or Usenet download. There will of course need to be more capacity too, and BBYW has been designed to see us and our customers right for forseeable future (Which in this industry can't possibly be expected to be more than a year!). The old product design wouldn't have coped with a usage explosion, and the product designs in use at many other ISPs also won't. We have an answer to questions that not many people are asking yet. For us that represents a short term problem, but for many others it's going to become a long term one without an answer from their current suppliers.

To assist those of us who do use plusnet a lot, and cannot see the point of changing. Could you add to our current daily usage tables the amount of usage we are currently using between 8 am and 4 pm (currently part of the off peak figure)Thus Giving us an analysys of our individual usage ofPeak (4pm -midnight), Off peak Midnight to 8 a.m and off peak (Day) 8 am to 4 pm the time which will under the new regime become Peak, and which currently appears to me to be fairly heavily restricted for P2P! Giving us 3 totals to work with!

I've already answered this a few time - Tis the trouble with so many forums!

We'll absolutely provide the info for 8AM - 4PM usage via VMBU, and it's been specified as a requirement for the next phase of the Broadband Your Way product. Development of that is due to start next week, and while it's not something we can provide instantly, we certainly recognise that it's important information fot some people who are considering whether to change.

Sorry for resurrecting ye olde thread but just starting doing a lil research on what packages are available these days and actually got round to reading all about the shiny new(ish) PN deals. Hmmmmm, interesting, and probably explains why I've had that rather strange feeling of being taken from behind for quite a while now

Things I occasionally do: Streaming (youtube and sometimes other similar video stuff but nothing huge or frequent, audio), http/ftp file DL (SW/AV updates, Linux ISOs, maybe a few other bits and pieces but again nothing huge or frequent).

Things I do: www, text Usenet and e-mail.

Things I do use: webspace, webstat logs, fax2email.

So I'm currently on Premier #1 with a 2Mb fixed connection - I saw no point in 'upgrading' to an upto 8Mb connection only to get upto what I was already getting (which is generally nowhere near 2Mb) but with all the potential added hassle ! Why Premier ? God knows really ! But that's what it's always been following some previous package changes but at £22/m it's looking even more of a raw deal now than it ever seemed before esp considering that streaming, DLs and ftp etc. rarely get close to a decent or often even a usable rate these days. Also, as I tend to do a lot of normal stuff at stupid o'clock, the nighttime mega-DLers often manage to screw that up for me bigtime by stealing my share of the paid BW for their (excessive) free use !

Never used to have probs with speeds and performance at all but since the big problems last year, it's been more than a bit poor most of the time. Had been contemplating PAYG for ages but from reading reports in forums various, it really didn't seem that things were that much better at the time either TBH. My usage has typically been around 3-5GB (with roughly 50:50 peak:offpeak) but more recently has only been 1-2GB total. The higher figures have generally been because of the need to repeat large iso DLs or streaming stuff several times due to them giving up part way through rather than actually DLing more useful stuff. In other words, increased BW usage due to PN problems various.

There are only 3 things that have kept me here for the last 10 years: No particularly serious connection problems, not wanting to change e-mail addresses and the fax2email facility. With the current spamfest that I now have the pleasure of dealing with after being totally spam free until now plus the fact that the new offerings don't appear to include fax2email, I think PN has just made the decision for me ! They can no longer reliably offer me the service(s) I use at a price that is competitive In principle, it would appear that I'm paying 1.5 - 2 times what is necessary and having now established that I feel even less happy than I was before needless to say.

If I was getting excellent performance and service for the extra do$h then maybe it would be justified but that simply isn't the case. e-mail has been more than a bit dodgy for ages although was improving but now I'm faced with losing all my e-mail addresses. Webstats are unreliable and have been for ages. Usenet is not exactly good and I don't expect significant benefit when it's out-sourced. Transfer rates in general are very variable and not particularly good most of the time either. Now I find that if I want to reduce costs to a realistic and competitive level then I lose fax2email.

So, are there any redeeming features of the latest offerings (for me) or any other good reasons to stay with PN now that I've been forced into a position to consider how to move forward after the security breach ? Also, can someone please confirm that fax2email has indeed been dropped rather than simply not mentioned in the blurb ? I've paid far more than my fair share of the mega-DLers BW for way too long now and suffered accordingly with poor performance so it's decision time. Is there a PN option for me ?

FWIW, I also agree with comments already made and don't really see how the new limits are more sustainable than the previous packages. I can't see how it stacks up at all but it presumably explains why my transfer rates and general performance declined suddenly last year and didn't really recover to those regularly and reliably achieved before that. I guess it also explains why a variety of questions raised on here at the time (in respect of individual site throttling and so on) didn't get answered. I can't see the new offerings with whatever the new throttling scheme is (or will be in reality) bringing an improvement to speeds I've been getting either and would expect them to be worse if anything. I dread to think just how useless it will be trying to do anything a bit 'old school' so to speak when everyone else is DLing vids or whatever 99% of the time !

so it kinda looks like the 10th birthday party is going to turn into a 'leaving do' at the mo unless I'm missing something real good buried away in the latest marketing spiel

« Last Edit: May 28, 2007, 02:41:09 am by mikeb »

--WARNING: The e-mail address on my profile is not my usual address, all messages sent via this site have been redirected elsewhere for test purposes. This could result in messages not being received in a timely manner or potentially not being received at all.

Now I find that if I want to reduce costs to a realistic and competitive level then I lose fax2email.

AFAIK if you are moving from a legacy product that had fax2email you can raise a ticket requesting to keep it if you move onto one of the BBYW products. In answer to your next question, no I don't know why they decided to drop it from the new packages but let old users keep it, unless they are planning to reintroduce it later as an addon service new users will have to pay for.